Category Archives: Bush

Ironclad Safeguards For … The Sovereign

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Crime

The American constitutional system provides the sovereign with ironclad safeguards against accountability.

As was the case with “W,” the national debt alone is reason enough to impeach the sitting president, Barack Obama. But so high is the constitutional threshold for finding a president guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors—that justice is seldom swift or sure. “The procedure for impeachment,” writes historian Paul Johnson, “is that the House presents and passes an impeachment resolution and the Senate convicts, or not, by a two-thirds vote.” (A History of The American People, p. 504.)

According to InfoPlease, Since 1797, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon.”

“The Small Fry.”

It’s a case of crimes and no punishment.

Although preeminent liberal professor Jonathan Turley disagrees, history attests that the Constitution has proven close to useless in safeguarding natural liberties.

Related:
“Liberal law professor: Obama is the danger.”
“Five myths about impeachment.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

A Traitor To His People

Barack Obama, Bush, IMMIGRATION, Private Property

How incompetent is Big Media in the age of the “Internet of Everything”? Having only just disgorged his usual pablum about the surge of dependent minors rushing the Southern border, President Obama’s words are not yet online, except for brief mention on ABC.com. This much I can relay:

Not a word did BHO utter about his initial impetus, which was to reverse the Bush-era law preventing the repatriation of minors from central America. Not a peep.

Minted for the occasion was a new catch phrase or two such as that we “lack the capacity” to control the US border. What happened to the famous pen and phone? Hussein also hammered home a guilt trip about American compassion, the implication being that compassion precludes enforcement and protection of private property stateside.

His promise of more American foreign aid to enable youngsters to remain in their homes of origin only enforced the president’s flippant attitude to the private property of Americans, by which I also mean the safety of our bodies, for they are our prime real estate.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: Don’t Know Shiite From Shinola (From Figurative Crucifixion to Cookies)

Bush, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Islam, Terrorism, War

“Don’t know Shiite From Shinola” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Almost unanimous on the right is the mystifying notion that a reduced American footprint in the world, President Barack Obama’s doing, has brought about the “sudden” eruption across Iraq of a particularly savage faction of Sunni fundamentalists called the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). This small band of zealots has conquered a third of Iraq, including the metropolis of Mosul, from which 500,000 residents have fled. Tikrit too is under ISIS control. Fallujah fell in January.

Odd too is the idea that ISIS, currently barreling toward the capital, Baghdad, is somehow a new killer on the block. While the gang, led by newcomer Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is not as ancient as the Egyptian goddess by the same name—ISIS was previously known as Al Qaida in Iraq (A.Q.I.), reflecting its earlier, more modest mission. A.Q.I. was the brainchild of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, described aptly in the New Yorker as, “A Jordanian who had been a convicted thief and sex criminal before turning to radical Islam.” Commensurate with its morphing, expansive ambitions, A.Q.I. changed its name to ISIS. Whereas “Al Qaida was originally envisioned as a kind of Sunni foreign legion, which would defend Muslim lands from Western occupation,” writes New Yorker staffer Lawrence Wright, “Zarqawi had a different goal in mind. He hoped to provoke an Islamic civil war.” George W. Bush’s invasion primed Iraq for Zarqawi’s purposes. “There was no better venue than the fractured state of Iraq, which sits astride the Sunni-Shiite fault line.”

So savage and extreme is ISIS, always has been, that it had been “booted out of the Al Qaida consortium,” attests Wright. Remember the “Dear Al (Zarqawi)” letter penned by Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in 2005? In it, Bin Laden’s Capo Bastone (Zawahiri) had asked the lieutenant (Zarqawi) to reconsider the wisdom of slaughtering so many Shia civilians in Iraq. Al-Z no. 1 broached the topic by counseling Al-Z no. 2 about the wisdom of bringing “the Muslim masses to the mujahed movement.” To that end, killing so many of them was probably unhelpful. Yes, the Shia are a handful—theologically problematic—conceded Zawahiri. Suspect too was the Shia’s history of “connivance with the Crusaders.” But while Zawahiri didn’t give a dried camel’s hump about his Shia brethren, he thought better of slaughtering them, preferring to forgive their “ignorance.” Besides, added Zawahiri as an afterthought, it’s impossible for the mujahedeen to kill all Iraq’s Shia.

While Zarqawi rejected Zawahiri’s soft approach, his personal odyssey has a happy ending. Zarqawi died, killed by Americans in 2006. But his legacy, like that of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, lives on in ISIS. Shia Iran, once a bitter enemy of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, now has pride-of-place in the Iraq that Bush built. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been galvanized to the aid of the Iraqi army. But it is not the 930,000 members of the Iraqi security forces that the Revolutionary Guard aims to rouse. Despite the princely sums ($25 billion) Americans spent to train and prepare it, in Mosul, this inorganic, artificial creation of the Bush brigades fled before 1,300 ISIS fighters. To fight the marauding Sunnis, the Revolutionary Guard will likely corral well-motivated, tribal Shia militias. (In Iraq, Shiites make up about sixty percent of the population. Sunnis comprise less than twenty percent.)

It is this cauldron of sectarian strife that Saddam Hussein kept from bubbling over. …

… Read the complete column. “Don’t know Shiite From Shinola” is now on WND.

Our German readers can now follow this column and other worthy writers in the JUNGE FREIHEIT, a weekly newspaper of excellence.

Editors wishing to feature the “Return to Reason” column in their publications, pixel or paper, please contact Bookings@ilanamercer.com.

UPDATE (6/20): From (Figurative) Crucifixion to Cookies. One-Upon-A-Time They Crucified Me for what I would write about Iraq. Now I get a cookie. I’ll take the cookie. This reader calls his comments, “Thoughts while shaving.” His are regular quips at “Comments.” Funny. He writes:

ramblindon • 5 hours ago “Thoughts while shaving: While some contributors to WND are tedious at best, Ilana Mercer is not to be counted among them. With first cup of coffee in hand it just about jumped out of hand when reading the ‘Don’t know Shiite from Shinola.’ You get a ‘cookie’ Ilana Mercer! Period! End Report!”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Is Laura Ingraham Dissociating From The ‘War Party’?

Bush, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Neoconservatism, Republicans, War

Is broadcaster Laura Ingraham prepared to entertain the fact that her passionate populism may also require that she reject the War Party’s recreational wars? “Congressman Gutierrez,” she said on ABC’s Power House, “is closer to the Republican grassroots on this issue [Iraq], than the Republican leaders are. He’s on to something.”

What did Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez say?

“We shouldn’t have been in Iraq in the first place,” he said. “I voted against the incursion in Iraq. They said we would be welcomed as liberators; we weren’t. They said it was going to be paid for; it wasn’t. We should never have been there. This is a centuries-old fight between Sunnis and Shia.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Benghazi Doesn’t Register On The State’s Scale of Scandals

Bush, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military, Terrorism, War, WMD

Benghazi is a scandal but it is no Iraq. Why, the Benghazi affair doesn’t rise to the level of a scandal compared to the invasion of Libya, which Obama leveled for no good reason. (And Benghazi is no scandal compared to Obama’s health-care nationalization, which will kill many more.) But Republicans love leveling this or the other country occasionally. So not a murmur did one hear from them about Libya.

In case your eyes glaze over when Benghazi is mentioned on Fox News—at least as often as CNN goes on about Donald Sterling and the missing Malaysian plane—a reminder: An American mission was left undefended, resulting in the slaughter of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans (who, given the pecking order in the Empire, generally go unnamed). No attempt was made at a rescue, because of an order from high-above to stand down.

Obama’s real scandal is Zero-care, not Benghazi, which doesn’t really register on the American state’s scale of scandals.

As to Bush, Cheney and creepy Condoleeza: Yes, they are war criminals. For perspective, “BUSH’S 16 WORDS MISS THE BIG PICTURE,” published July 16, 2003, is worth a read:

This column informed readers about the Niger lie in March 2003, after Muhammad ElBaradei, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief, unceremoniously and politely called the allegation that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa “inauthentic.” It’ll take the mainstream media a few years to work out, but many in the administration (not least Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney) had been sitting on this intelligence since February 2002, when a diplomat called Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA and the State Department to ferret it out.

Members of the media aren’t capable of much more than fragmenting and atomizing information. Integrating facts into a conceptual understanding is certainly not what Howard Fineman, Chris Matthew’s anointed analyst, and the brain trust on MSNBC’s “Hardball” does. To disguise his pedestrian politicking, Fineman discussed who, at what time in the afternoon, as well as when in the estrus cycle of the next door cow, did an official put the infamous 16 words about nukes and Niger on the president’s desk. That ought to make a nation already bogged down in concrete bits of disconnected data see the forest for the trees, wouldn’t you say?

Reducing this administration’s single-minded will to war to an erroneous 16 words ignores the big picture. First came the decision to go to war. The misbegotten illegality that was this administration’s case for war followed once the decision to go to war had already been made. The administration’s war wasn’t about a few pieces that did not gel in an otherwise coherent framework; it wasn’t about an Iraq that was poised to attack the U.S. with germs and chemicals rather than with nukes; it was about a resigned, hungry, economic pariah that was a sitting duck for the power-hungry American colossus.

By all means, dissect and analyze what, in September 2002, I called the “lattice of lies” leveled at Iraq: the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes from Timbuktu, the invisible “meetings” with al-Qaida in Prague, an al-Qaida training camp that existed under Kurdish—not Iraqi—control, as well as the alleged weaponized chemical and biological stockpiles and their attendant delivery systems that inspectors doubted were there and which never materialized.

But then assemble the pieces and synthesize the information, will you? Do what the critical mind must do. The rational individual, wedded to reality, reason, and objective, non-partisan truth saw Bush’s sub-intelligent case for war for what it was. He saw Bush as the poster boy for “the degeneracy of manner and morals” which James Madison warned war would bring—the same “bring ‘em on” grin one can also observe on the face of a demented patient with end-stage syphilis. The rational individual saw all this, and understood that when Madison spoke of “war as the true nurse of executive aggrandizement,” he was speaking of the disposition of this dictator.

Hold the CIA responsible for giving in to the War Party’s pressure, if you will. But recognize that the CIA was only obeying the wishes of its masters. The CIA had attempted to resist. Witness the early statements by Vince Cannistraro, former counterterrorism chief, who scoffed at the concoction of an al-Qaida-Iraq connection. Having come under fire after September 11, the agency gave in to White House pressure to politicize and shape the lackluster information.

Unforgivable? Yes. But consider who the intelligence community takes its corrupt cues from. Perhaps New Jersey’s poet laureate Amiri Baraka had a point when he wondered, “Who know [sic] what kind of Skeeza is a Condoleezza.” The National Security Adviser has since September 11 been rocking the intelligence community with her antipathy to the truth. As if her Saddam-seeded nuclear-winter forecasts were not bad enough, on September 8, 2002, she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “We do know that there have been shipments into Iraq of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to nuclear weapons programs.” “That’s just a lie,” an appalled David Albright of the Institution for Science and International Security told the New Republic.

In her latest damage control interview with Blitzer, Rice continued to insist that Saddam Hussein was threatening his neighbors when the president pounced, and, as justification for the war, she still makes reference to Saddam’s effort to pursue a nuclear program in … 1991, and to the burying of old centrifuge parts prior to the first Gulf War. Rice, of course, continues to deny the Niger forgery.

Clearly, Whitehall and Washington will not willingly give up their dark secrets. With few exceptions, such as U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd; Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich; John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee; and Bob Graham of Florida, the utterly disposable and detestable Democrats have been only too pleased to aid and abet this (heritable) executive dictatorship.

And the media will continue to do what their collective intelligence permits: focus only on the one lie, thus making the lattice more impenetrable.

I will not be adjudicating the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq here afresh. Comments to that effect will be removed from the Facebook Timeline. For a detailed chronicling of that war, I refer readers to the Articles Archive (click the relevant key words). As does Barely a Blog feature a search on the side bar.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

The Occupational Hazards Of … Occupation & Murder

Barack Obama, Bush, Crime, Foreign Policy, The State, WMD

“Dude, this was like two years ago,” said Tommy Vietor, an ex-White House aide, in reply to Fox News’ questions about Benghazi. Your Millennial in action.

Republicans are furious over these latest revelations about Benghazi:

The Obama administration has been under fire since the emails were released earlier this week, with some Republicans calling them the “smoking gun.” The emails indicate a White House aide helped prep Rice for her appearances and pushed the explanation that the attack was because of an Internet video. The White House is now facing credibility questions, since they had previously downplayed their role in Rice’s talking points.
Vietor repeated the stance of Press Secretary Jay Carney, who has repeatedly tried to claim that the so-called “prep call” with Rice — as it was described in one email — was not about Benghazi. Vietor said the email was referring to ongoing protests around the world against American embassies.

You’d think that the fiasco and fibs of George W. Bush’s WMD were so much better. During the Bush years, GOP operatives, just like mainstream Democrat media, finessed Bush’s craven exploits in Iraq and refrained from covering the worst if it.

I feel for family members who mourn the deaths in Benghazi. But these are the occupational hazards of … occupation. Dedicate your life to doing the dirty work of the state—occupying people who’re uninterested in being occupied and democratized—and you should not expect your employer, Uncle Sam, to cherish your life or come to your rescue.

Speaking of occupational hazards, I approve of what Dana Loesch said on “The Kelly File” about the drawn-out, “botched” execution of confessed killer Clayton Lockett: “That’s the occupational hazard of killing somebody; your execution could go wrong.”

Here is an account of the “deeply troubling” Okla. execution of Clayton Lockett, as the execrable Obama called it, as well as the latter’s thoughts about abolishing the death penalty (with his pen and Idiot Pad, no doubt).

“In the application of the death penalty, we have seen significant problems,” such as racial bias and the execution of innocents, as well as the “deeply troubling” execution of Clayton Lockett, he said, responding to a question at a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday.
“All these do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied,” he added.

Missing from the remarks of the odious Obama was mention of Lockett’s (white) victim. Was the termination of her life not a biased thing to do? Lockett shot young Stephanie Neiman twice with a shotgun before burying her alive, in a shallow grave. I believe that the fact of her rape has been omitted from the accounts.

Watch this beast’s confession:


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint